[llvm-dev] [iovisor-dev] [PATCH, BPF 1/5] BPF: Use a provisional ELF e_machine value
Richard Henderson via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jun 16 09:57:35 PDT 2016
On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev
> <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote:
>> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc,
>> elfutils, and binutils.
> Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches?
I haven't sent one yet for binutils.
>> + EM_BPF = 0xeb9f, // Linux kernel bpf virtual machine
> was this id reserved this with whoever managing the numbers ?
> The only reason bpf backend used em_none is that we were couldn't
> figure out who's responsible for keeping these records.
No, it's an unofficial number. But there's history for this.
In binutils there's a comment
/* If it is necessary to assign new unofficial EM_* values, please pick large
random numbers (0x8523, 0xa7f2, etc.) to minimize the chances of collision
with official or non-GNU unofficial values.
NOTE: Do not just increment the most recent number by one.
Somebody else somewhere will do exactly the same thing, and you
will have a collision. Instead, pick a random number.
Normally, each entity or maintainer responsible for a machine with an
unofficial e_machine number should eventually ask registry at sco.com for
an officially blessed number to be added to the list above. */
It used to take years to get sco to answer such emails.
More information about the llvm-dev